MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004357950 · doi:10.1155/2020/8924095

Air Transportation Direct Share Analysis and Forecast

2020· article· en· W3004357950 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xufang Zheng, Chia-Mei Liu, Peng Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFederal Aviation Administration
KeywordsAviationPreferenceComputer scienceOperations researchEconometricsEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air transportation direct share is the ratio of direct passengers to total passengers on a directional origin and destination (O&D) pair. Direct share is an essential factor of passenger flow distribution and shows passengers’ general preference for direct flight services on a certain O&D. A better understanding and a more accurate forecast of direct share can benefit air transportation planners, airlines, and airports in multiple ways. In most of the previous research and applications, it is commonly assumed that direct share is a fixed ratio, which contradicts the air transportation practice. In the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), the O&D direct share is forecasted as a constant based on the latest observation of direct share on the O&D. To find factors which have significant impacts on O&D direct share and to build an accurate model for O&D direct share forecasting, both parametric and nonparametric machine learning models are investigated in this research. We propose a novel category-based learning method which can provide better forecasting performance compared to employing the single modeling method for O&D direct share forecasting. Based on the comparison, the developed category-based learning model is a promising replacement for the model used for O&D direct share forecasting by the FAA TAF.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207